Talk:Baltic states/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Finland as a Baltic State?

I understand that this question has been raised before. But it has not been satisfactorily resolved, and in my view the opening paragraph is misleading. The only mention in international politics and law of Finland as a Baltic state is the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty — a secret, devious pact intended precisely to redraw the boundaries of Europe. During WWII, Stalin himself treated Finland as separate from the Baltics: whereas the three tiny republics were to be incorporated into the USSR, Finland would remain independent. ("Finland in the Second World War", O.Vehviläinen, Palgrave 2002, p.122) In any case, there has been no treatment of Finland as a Baltic state whatsoever since then. For example, when the country sought to join the Nordic community after the war, there was no countervailing notion of it already belonging to a region called the "Baltic states". So to state that "alternative definitions may include Finland" in the opening paragraph is misleading, not least of all because the claim appears in the present tense, as if the definition persisted at all. Moreover, the later claim that, "during that period [1920s] Finland was also often referred to as one of the Baltic states", is I believe inaccurate — it should be backed up with referrences or struck out altogether.

As a reference point, the Wikipedia article on Finland makes no mention of the country ever having been considered a "Baltic state", and I suspect that such a claim would not make it through the editors. Also, three of the five people who participated in the previous discussion on this question claim never to have encountered such a definition. Lkbunker 10:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not surprising that people don't know what happened fifty years ago, the article only briefly mentions the fact for clerification I don't see any problem with that. The history books may include such definiton, for example. And the other metion is referenced --Xil...sist! 11:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps then we also need to make a small change to the Finland article. One would need to look in encyclopedias, etc. published 75 or more years ago to find the references, e.g., Finland:
"BETWEEN Russia and the Scandinavian peninsula lies the largest of the Baltic States, Finland, often called 'the land of a thousand lakes.'
...
The World War came and Finland, like the other Baltic States, secured her freedom. She announced her independence in 1918 and is now a republic with a president, who is elected for six years, and a single legislative body of 200 members, elected by universal suffrage."
from a sizeable encyclopedia (several pages given to just each of the Baltic states in the published original, it's about a 20 volume set) reference.
   Please don't take this as POV pushing. The reproduction of references on that (our) site, including materials from MIT, has been simply to address the dearth of English-language materials on the internet about Latvia and, as they are mentioned in those materials, the other Baltic states. In as much as possible, I've attempted to gather sources published contemporary with their times so that they truly reflect external and internal views of the country--not boiled down and rehashed by later researchers who weren't there. So, I've been particularly motivated to find encyclopedias, etc. that most people do not have (thrown out as "obsolete"--while I seek them out precisely because they are a contemporary evaluation of Latvia et al. of the time).
   Instead of the 1920's, the article text should say something along the lines of "after F,E,L & L achieved independence in post-WWI Europe, they were collectively referred to as Baltic states".
   Since Finland is not a "Baltic state" in contemporary usage, the mention of the historical use of the term is sufficient. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the lead to be more accurate. I trust this will satisfy all parties. As far as I can tell, the 4 became 3 when Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were annexed by the Soviet Union--also coloring references produced after that time by their now referring to those 3, no longer 4, in the context of their history prior to WWII--but I don't have a reference that speaks to the specific change in terminology. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I took out (perhaps temporarily) the statement about the term referring to Russian territories as I haven't seen that term in sources contemporary to tsarist Russia. TBD.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There are modern sources that call Finland a Baltic state although in historic context: [1] Published 2004 Encyclopedia of the Romantic Era, 1760-1850 By Christopher John Murray Taylor & Francis; Page 48: Finland, it should be pointed out, was also the only Baltic state that had...

1994 The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence - Page 49: [2] Finland, which must be viewed historically as another Baltic state

Also this might be interesting: Published 2007 After the Soviet collapse, Finland strenuously avoided being viewed as the fourth Baltic state or any other Eastern European state... Security Strategies, Power Disparity and Identity: The Baltic Sea Region - Page 54 by Olav Knudsen [3]

--Termer 14:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think P.J. Vecrumba did a good job in rewriting the lead. It should satsify most parties who care about the matter one way or another.Dr. Dan 15:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Except that when you include the point in the opening paragraph, even briefly and as an alternative use, it is not a clarification — it is a central assertion and it reads comically. Only concrete, non-contentious points should be made in opening, so at least move it elsewhere.
By way of historical fact, even under Tsarist rule, Finland was an autonomous Grand Duchy with special status, entirely separate from the three Baltics. Its declaration of independence on 6 December 1917 was almost immediately recognised by Bolshevist Russia; whereas Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had to fight wars of independence.
Ideally, we should have a Finland expert intervene here. Lkbunker 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Vecrumba successfuly left out Kaliningrad Oblast. I changed the opening sentence to include alternatives because the article would contradict itself if it was said in the lead that there are three Baltic states altough other definitions are mentioned in the text and it would be confusing if the other possibilities wouldn't be mentioned in the text right after that statement. I think that other definitions should be mentioned as briefly as possible, because these are not included in general scope of the article, thus it is now confusing and redundant. My original version allready said "alternative" as opposed to "most common", which indicates that these other variatons are unusual and rare. It could be shortened to - (alternatively Finland and parts of Russia may be included) - which perhaps is better than "include" ----Xil...sist! 15:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what appeared as comical in the rewrite. As for the Bolshevik order of recognition of the states, I fail to see how that would include or not include them in the context of the discussion. I think the issue of whether or not Finland was included in the original Baltic States after WWI, is the main point here and whether it is important enough to mention with some prominence, and not put in an obscure place under the rug. P.S. Maybe Lenin's train ride through Finland, caused him to be appreciative. Dr. Dan 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither do I understand what is editorially comical... it's concrete, cited, and the term was used between the wars to also pertain Finland. (As far as any sources I have, the term was not in use prior to post-WWI independence.) Königsberg was part of Germany between the wars, so not a Baltic state (so I think the "parts of Russia" reference does not apply).
Prior to independence, Latvia was included in territories with special privileges (not as autonomous as Finland, but still apart from "main" Russia). But, to Xil's, none of those lands were referred to as states during tsarist rule, so I believe the limitation of "Baltic states" as a term is to the period subsequent to WWI, at that time including Finland, and during/after WWII just referring to the three (and in retrospective scholarship). A "Finland" expert is fine, but we might not get a NPOV reaction if they're bent on "Finns are Nordic." This isn't about who is what, it's only about a term, including how it was used to refer to a specific set of post WWI newly independent states at that point in time. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you probably are not aware of the fact that we are talking about the modern Kalingrad Oblast of Russia, not Königsberg. Finland and Russia dosen't realy belong here, these countries should be mentioned only to explain what are uncommon definitions for the region, the shorter explenation the better, your is not short and I'm affraid is not accurate (or atleast not what it was supposed to be), therefore I removed the explenation altogether --Xil...sist! 20:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Complete removal is neither accurate nor appropriate. Kalingrad is not a "state" don't know why that was mentioned in discussions, I believe we're not in disagreement. I had already removed Russia, not in disagreement. However, Finland needs to be mentioned in historical use of the term (between the two wars). If you don't like it in the intro, where I thought it was mentioned in an appropriate manner, as that appears to be how/when the term "Baltic states" started in the first place, then it certainly needs to be somewhere else. By contrast, look at how much time the article spends on the history of the term "Baltic"--not even the subject of the article. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Rather than have a useless edit war about the matter, it's suficiently resolved, IMHO, as it is briefly mentioned in the history section, ... In the 1920's the newly established countries...and during that period Finland was often referred to as one of the Baltic states... And a question to Xil. Do you agree with Lkbunker that the timeliness, or order of Soviet Russia's recognition of these states would be evidence as to whether or not Finland was one of the original "Baltic States"? Just curious. Dr. Dan 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course I was partial to my edit, but I think we're fine. Whether Bolshevik Russia chose to recognize or chose to intervene shouldn't have any bearing on the initial use of the term after WWI. Yes? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think not (to the bearing on the initial use part). Or, yes to the (yes?). Case closed? Dr. Dan 02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not about Kaliningrad being state or not, but economy, I believe. The matter with alternative definitons is allready described in etymology section. Answering your question - No, it seems that Russia treated Baltic staes and Findland pretty much similary in 1920s-1930s, according to article on Finnish Civil War "Lenin calculated that the Bolsheviks could perhaps hold central parts of Russia but would have to give up some territories on its periphery, including Finland in the less important north-western corner." not because as Lkbunker implies Finland was treated as some special case. It seems that on eve of WWII Finland also was treated same as the Baltic states. In fact perhaps the idea of "New countries at the Baltic sea" in first place was the reason why Finland was ever named a Baltic state. There are several other reasons why Finland isn't Baltic and perhaps shouldn't ever been regarded as such. What ever the reason - it is quite obvious that alternative definitions do exist, if people think that even short note of what these definitions is bad, let's leave it out of the lead. Case closed, hopefully. --Xil...sist! 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

why merge? revert by Xil [4]

Etymology first of all, I think someone has really got carried away with this Etymology thing. Its 5 times longer than the Etymology of the Baltic Sea. I personally think it's useless unless someone wants to add the ideas to the Baltic Sea article. Thats why I moved it down away, it's long and boring, a lot of strange ideas presented. So if it was up to me, I'd get rid of this Etymology all together and in case anybody thinks it's really unclear that the Baltic States got their name from the Baltic Sea, perhaps this could be bold out somewhere.
Culture, History, Politics What has Baltic states had been acquired by Soviet Union later... were called "bourgeois nationalists to do with culture? It would fit well under history if anything. At the same time the language would go together with the Culture section until someone takes time and comes up with something more serious for the section other than In Soviet times this made them appear as the "West" of the Soviet Union. Politics section is just a resent history thats all. For my eyes the current structure is all mixed together without much sense, thats why I took the culture parts from different sections and the history parts from the Culture and Politics and restructured the article accordingly:culture put under Culture and history and politics under History. Or is it only me who thinks the things are currently strangely mixed together? politics/history and things like Estonia has shown a strong desire to identify itself as Nordic under culture? If anything such things would make sense under the recent history etc.--Termer 04:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, that someone was me, the Etymology part of it is normal lenght and explains more possibilities than Baltic Sea (I took part of the text from there acctualy), it is much longer because the usage of term is explained, which is another reason why it should be at top. The text merged from Baltic republics, IMHO, depicts how USSR influenced culture. The politics section depicts current events and why it happens. Just because something happened in past it dosen't mean that it has no influence today and by puting it under history you limit it, because the future plans and current events don't realy fit under history. Estonian desire to be Nordic, maybe indeed fits under politics. I see no good in lenghtly sections describing varios topics (though by this logic etymology section needs to be splited in two as well). I resectioned article when I was merging Baltic republics, that was hardly a week ago, there hasn't even been enough time to work on it. ----Xil...sist! 16:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A map for usage of term section

The map in question
The map in question

I've made a map which depicts all posible places considered Baltic at some point of history to ilustrate the article. Because of previous arguments and other posible objections I decided not to put it in the article but place it here for comments --Xil...sist! 01:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. It's a little unclear in terms of which is included in which, you might consider (nested) colored borders indicating the main ones (before WWII, current) and color code the "rare" ones solid, but in different color. Will think about it some more. P.S. What tool do you use for maps? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything other than Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is rare ;) I had colored Kaliningrad in different color but it was too contrasting. I think that maybe colored borders could be used to indicate former Baltic provinces, so that three different colors are not used for the current Baltic states. Also description for Kaliningrad could be better (than "other definitions"). I used Photoshop (It's just one of the European location maps croped and recolored) ----Xil...sist! 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
   With the discussion on what to name the article, I thought of a potential solution/proposal regarding maps (one or more). That is to show three primary bits of information:
  • The territories of the Baltic provinces/guberniyas prior to WWI--the Baltic governorates article could use this too
  • The territories of the Baltic provinces as independent after WWII potentially showing +/- re: current borders
  • The territories of historical Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian inhabitation post-arrival of the Latvian/Lithuanian tribes--areas whose boundaries have been remarkably stable for millennia and are a close match today's states.
If it gets too complex, put the Baltic provinces map separately in that article and just reference. Thoughts? —PētersV (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology and usage of the term

Hello, I still think the etymology part is way over proportioned and since the most for it speaks of the Baltic Sea, not the Baltic states, it should be moved over there.--Termer 07:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The term Baltic states comes from Baltic sea it's the same thing, isn't it ? --~~Xil...sist! 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, looking at the map that the states and the sea are not the same thing but next to each other.--Termer 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is same thing linguisticly, if States are named after the Sea then the name of the States has the same etymology and meaning as that of the sea ~~Xil...sist! 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So if thats the case, why would anybody need to duplicate the Etymology of the Baltic Sea/states all over again? Once the States have the same etymology and the meaning as the sea if the readers wanted to they could just click on the Etymology of the Baltic sea and take it from there. And that was the point in the first place.--Termer 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to go along with Termer, Mare Balticum existed long before a notion of Baltic states. The name of the states comes from the sea. If it were the Viking Sea because of a Viking presence 2,000 years ago, one would not say the Viking states were named for the Vikings, one would say they were named for the Viking Sea, which long ago was named for the Vikings. PētersV 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Etymology traces the original meaning of a name, Baltic sea is another term, it dosen't explain the meaning of the "Baltic" - perhaps you have noted that Baltic states are also refered to as "Baltics", which is plural of "Baltic" ? The etymology of name for Baltic sea would include other names for the sea which this article does not and this is not duplicate of anything - I wrote most of it my self and for this article. ~~Xil...sist! 14:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't peeked today, but the last time I compared etymology sections, I thought yours here definitely improved on the one at Baltic Sea :-) and was thinking it really should go there as the "master" etymology for the origin of "Baltic" (then a link here to the section there). PētersV 14:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my point! Why Baltic states have much more detailed etymology about the Baltic Sea than the Baltic sea article itself? Also I think culture and history are much more important sections for this article but currently the reader gets stumbled into long and detailed etymology about the Baltic sea instead. Nobody is saying that the Etymology is bad or anything. Like PētersV pointed out, it's better than the one in Baltic sea. However I think it would be much more important to promote the cultures and history of the Baltic states , that makes it what the countries are all about, not the name that they got it after the sea next to them. Thats why I'd narrow the Etymology considerably down, move it and link it to the Etymology of the Baltic sea, perhaps even start a new article under Category:Etymologies and take the reader right into the culture part that should be the primary calling card for the states instead of the Etymology of the Baltic sea I think.--Termer 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
So you want to shorten up this section so that other incomplete sections/articles look better ? It is approximately same lenght as other sections and stays on the topic (which is to explain the original meaning of the word not what was named so first) if the reader wants to know about something else they most likely will look for it in the first place and won't read the article, this is a webpage not a book that's why it is better to keep with the structure used in several articles where etymology is on top --~~Xil...sist! 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
you know what, once 2 guys tell you the same thing, maybe there is something to it, please consider that and move the Etymology about the Baltic sea where it belongs. Thanks--Termer 21:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope Xil has not taken this all to heart--"retired" + simply deleted all his great work here on etymology. I put it back until a proper merge can be done. :-( PētersV 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

yep, the point was to narrow it down and move the most of it that speaks of the Baltic sea to the relevant article not to get rid of it all together.--Termer 02:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Side note, an obvious (hindsight) fix that headings should be plural as there are multiple entities! —PētersV (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename

It has been brought to my attention that the term Baltic States can be too often misleading and interpreted as one country consisting of the 3 states. Therefore I'd suggest, to avoid confusion rename the article: Baltic countries.--Termer (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Baltic states" is in wide use that I don't think there is any chance of confusion. Compare the google book searches, 3710 hits for Baltic states compared with 1593 hits for Baltic countries. Martintg (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact that you guys down under know better is not going to help it that a large junction of English speakers coming from a certain united states interpret the name "Baltic States" as a meaning of a single country instead of three distinct countries. And maybe the frequent google books refs have something to do with the confusion. The fact that many people think of the Baltic states as a single country became evident with the release of The Singing revolution. Here is what the authors of the film have to say about the issue , why they started to use Baltic countries instead of states. It's in the middle there somewhere [5]--Termer (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Martintg here. Baltic States is used much more frequently in both unofficial and official texts. People of US are not exactly renowned for their knowledge in geography and isn't it actually the very purpose of Wikipedia to educate them? Also, Baltic countries already redirects here. Oth (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if anybody wants to keep educating anybody that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are in fact one country, "Baltic States" is doing just fine. --Termer (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. Not that it has anything to do with the thing but once brought up, it has always amazed me that mostly Europeans who keep claiming:People of US are not exactly renowned for their knowledge in geography rarely can place anything correctly outside of Europe, either it's about Americas or South East Asia, Africa not to mention can tell where and what exactly all the States of the US are. Being self centered is a human thing to be, in that sense Americans are no different from Europeans or anybody else in the world including an average knowledge in Geography beyond their continent. The point is , nobody in the World beyond Scandinavia knows anything much about where and what exactly are the Baltic states or countries and current title associates it for many English speakers like it is one country.--Termer (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You are exactly right, I have met people in Germany who didn't know where Estonia is located. What I meant before is if a person searches for "Baltic States" and reaches this article, then he/she can read it and learn that these are actually separate countries and so on. If she/he is convinced in the opposite and is not intrested in the matters at all, then renaming the article is not going to help anyway. And we can not change the fact that the frase "Baltic States" is employed more than "Baltic countries" and therefore should have priority. Oth (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that ambiguous "Baltic States" is employed more than "Baltic countries" is not a strong argument supporting the use of the ambiguous term on WP I think. And anybody who searches for "Baltic States" and ends up in an article about "Baltic countries" would get educated immediately that the states are actually separate countries. to expect that anybody would read it and learn from the article that these are actually separate countries is a bit too optimistic. Actually, the current article is not even spelling it out.--Termer (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Baltic countries is that it could refer to countries that border the Baltic Sea, such as Poland. Martintg (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Poland? never seen anywhere that Poland is called a Baltic country. And Finland, Sweden Denmark are never called baltic countris in the world but Scandinavian countries. But feel free to show that this concern has some real basis. And even if Poland is sometimes referred to as a Baltic country, so what? I think the Baltic State thing has originated from the popular use of states of former Russia and/or Soviet Union, thats why up to the WWII they called Finland a Baltic state most likely. Meaning former Russian Baltic province. Nobody says anywhere really things like Scandinavian states or Benelux states, the common use is Scandinavian countries and Benelux countries therefore why should Baltic countries be any different and use such an ambiguous term on WP that is misinterpreted as it appears that often? --Termer (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I don't see any political connotation between one title compared with the other, to me they are freely interchangeable, with "Baltic states" being a more common form. So it is no big deal from me, but I would want the opinion of other editors, particularly Peters and Renata, so I left a message on their talk pages inviting them to comment. BTW, check out this web site for one classification of "Baltic countries". Martintg (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I see the difference. But it's not about me or you who are familiar with the subject but another about 300 mil. English speakers to whom "Baltic States" says like it is one country and like it has become evident, thats almost common knowledge to many. And of course we can make it their problem but than again, fighting ignorance that way has never worked really. Thats why I think we have an opportunity here to make a difference that perhaps in 10 years or so fewer people would think there's one country called Baltic states somewhere. Thats all. --Termer (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well since the role of Wikipedia is to fight ignorance, you have a point. Martintg (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the article to be titled Baltic Countries and the confusion mentioned in lead. The Baltic States probably derives from common practice of using country and state as synonyms. This is not correct, although a country is a state, word state does not have to denote a country. It is ambiguous and should not be used. (Like if we speak about our cats, we say "cats", not "felines".) Suva Чего? 06:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I'm still not convinced. I poked around at some pages (e.g. [6], [7], [8]) and found that "Baltic States" is used several times more than "Baltic countries" and I think these people ought to know what they are talking about. It might be because "Baltic States" is more political frase, though. If this article is really renamed then it should also explicitly explain the meaning of "Baltic States" rather than just be a short overview of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (the article as it is, now also needs it as Termer pointed out before). WP is to provide information about things people might encounter and people are more likely to come across "Baltic States" than "Baltic countries" (current title has wrong capitalisation!).

I also feel that we need more grounds for renaming than one blog post. How notable is this misconception, are there any other sources? And I would wait for the opinions of our southern neighbours too. Oth (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Politically or legally Baltic States is incorrect term. As state is not equal to country. This probably derives from SU times, and has become popular. If we don't rename the article, we should atleast correct the lead to read something like: "Although commonly called Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are in fact three independent countries without any higher shared government." (Except European Union :P). Suva Чего? 09:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone who suggests a name change to Baltic countries noticed that the translations in all three Baltic languages offered in the article intro specifically refer to states? I.e. Baltijas valstis in Latvian, not Baltijas zemes — the latter which incidentally is not a term I have heard used in a scholarly context. In Latvian, as far as I know, the term Baltijas valstis was in use during the interwar period, and thus cannot be shunned as a legacy of the Soviets (contrast with "Baltic republics"). In British English duirng the 1920s and '30s, Baltic states seems to have been preferred by both the War Office and Chatham House, albeit we also have the problem of Finland sometimes being included under this term (see previous heated debates in this matter).
As a native English speaker born and raised in North America, I find the insistence that people in the USA think "Baltic states" refers to something like a single "United States of the Baltic" is well off the mark. If this were so, why would the (then) US-based scholars Misiunas and Taagepera have titled their standard work The Baltic States: Years of Dependence 1940–1990 (itself a nod to Rauch's The Baltic States: Years of Independence; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 1917–1940)? Furthermore, as someone who regularly teaches courses in English about the Baltic Sea region at both the undergraduate and master's level in Sweden, I would tend to concur with the opinion that "Baltic countries" is ambiguous, in that it just as easily refers to all the countries of the Baltic Sea littoral, as much as it could exclusively refer to just Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. — Zalktis (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what the State should translate into estonian. In Estonian, both State and Country are translated to "riik". Except US states which is translated "osariik". Estonians tend to translate word "riik" to country though. So Balti Riigid would become Baltic Countries. Either way, it should be mentioned in lead that Baltic States are not interconnected and don't have any form of shared government. Suva Чего? 13:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There is The Council of the Baltic Sea States, other "not connected" countries are also referred as states. I think in Estonian Baltimaad and Balti riigid are equally valid, the latter is just more formal. Disclaimer:This is why I changed it, not to enforce my view in this country/state debate. Oth (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
1991 Saagpakk translates riik as state, Ministry of Justice does it too. Oth (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to weigh in on the "Baltic States" naming staying as is. That phrasing was used between the wars when they were newly independent (and included Finland) and has continued to be used (less Finland) when the three found themselves annexed. I have never seen "Baltic countries" ever used in that context. And you will note that the "Council of the Baltic Sea States" makes the point of indicating adjoining the Baltic Sea so as to not imply the Baltic [not Sea] States.
   Our mission is not to start renaming because Americans who think Latvia is somewhere in Brazil (true story, from a Latvian high school exchange student) might be confused as to whether Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are separate countries or somehow federated.
   To Suva's: "Although commonly called Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are in fact three independent countries without any higher shared government" we can simply say the term "Baltic States refers to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. This term came into use when these countries first gained their independence from the Russian Empire after WWI and originally included the newly independent Finland as well."
   Let's not spend more time describing what the Baltic States are NOT than what they ARE. To my mind, "Baltic countries," which seeks to avoid the common term "Baltic states," sounds too much like "countries along the Baltic Sea" and will cause more confusion than it will cure--creating a bigger problem than we're attempting to "fix."
    I would also add that I'm currently working at the largest educational textbook publisher on the planet. I checked their current high school history texts and they have index entries for "Baltic States" (capital "S") and use it in reference to the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania "fighting for" and achieving their independence after WWI. PētersV (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

...contrary to current school textbooks? Well, at least we know now from where the idea that Baltic States is one country originates from. Perhaps we should still do a favor to those American high school students, some of them might come across the article on WP and if Baltic States would redirect to Baltic countries, they'd find out that the so called Baltic States are actually 3 different Baltic countries. It might save them some embarrassment later on. also, the so called Baltic States of the Russian Empire definitely were "fighting for" and achieving their independence after WWI. There is nothing wrong with the index entries for "Baltic States" in that book. Just that after achieving their independence they became 3 different countries instead of one country called Baltic State like the "common knowledge" in the US currently most often thinks it is the case.--Termer (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's quite clear in the textbooks that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are completely separate countries. I've never seen that presented in a fashion that might confuse the reader.
  (Thinking out loud...) In terms of parallels, there are also the "Balkan States" -- here on WP "Balkan states" and "Balkan countries" all redirect to simply "Balkans"... a parallel might be to rename to "Baltics" and redirect all the various nomenclatures. As I said, just a thought.
   I'm still not convinced the purpose of article titles is always to enforce education/make a point (though I also strongly believe in not using titles that whitewash history--that's different from making a point). Sometimes it's better that a title be just a title. I'm still rather firmly in the "Baltic States" camp but I'm open.
  That said, do we know there's really a problem? Frankly, in my experience, it's much more a problem that people confuse the Baltic states with the aforesaid Balkan states--that's a real problem I have run into more than a few times. (!) —PētersV (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to get carried away here PētersV. the question is do we want to educate those who think Baltic States is one country. This is advanced knowledge for high school students only. The issue of separating Balkan from Baltic belongs to grade school curriculum and WP is too sophisticated for dealing with such things. --Termer (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Termer, when you wrote, "also, the so called Baltic States of the Russian Empire definitely were "fighting for" and achieving their independence after WWI.", above were you not perhaps confusing Baltic states with Baltic provinces of the Russian Empire? You would need to cite me a reputable, scholarly source that translates the Russian administrative division guberniya as "state" before I would accept your line of reasoning here. While you are at it, you might also suggest where one might find a published survey or the like that confirms how your oft-maligned American highschool students think that the collective noun "Baltic states" implies that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are part of some sort of federative Baltic polity, rather than independent nation states. I ask this because it seems to me that much of your argument for a name change rests on supposed beliefs of this (anecdotal?) group of ignoramuses. — Zalktis (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
As an aside I'd like to point out that August Rei edited a collection published in London in 1948 entitled Nazi-Soviet Conspiracy and the Baltic States: Diplomatic Documents and Other Evidence. This book was "issued under the authority of the Estonian National Council and the Estonian Information Centre" (from bibliographic record on COPAC). — Zalktis (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Zalktis there is no need to take everything literally I've said here exactly like the term Baltic States shouldn't be taken literally like it was one country. However, you got a point there that there is no scholarly reference to the fact that many think of the Baltic States as one country. It is most likely entirely WP:OR and currently brought up at the singingrevolution web page. Didn't I already paste a link here? if not, here it is. The second concern comes from some non-Baltic people, who seem to think that the Baltic "States" are one country....
And again Zalktis the only question here is do we want to do anything about the issue or not by calling the article Baltic countries instead of ambiguous Baltic states? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that we first should establish that there is actually a serious problem with the title of the article, i.e. that there is some widespread confusion amongst English-speakers, before we can decide what steps need be taken to remedy the problem. I, for one, am still not convinced that there is a general, wide-spread misconception that the English term "Baltic states" semantically predicates a single, unfied polity, rather than being a useful a regional name for a group of independent nation states. Furthermore — I beseech any political scientists to correct me if I am wrong — in English the term "state" implies both a territory and a government, whereas "country" is the more fuzzy term, being more geographic than political (cf. "Low Countries"). In my experience, "Batlic states" is the established, relatively precise term for grouping the independent nation states of Estoniia, Latvia, and Lithuania as a region within Europe since their emergence from the collapse of the Russian Empire. —Zalktis (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest we change...
The Baltic states (Estonian: Balti riigid, Latvian: Baltijas valstis, Lithuanian: Baltijos valstybės) is a region in Northern Europe which encompasses Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the most common definition.
to
The Baltic states (Estonian: Balti riigid, Latvian: Baltijas valstis, Lithuanian: Baltijos valstybės) refers to the countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and, historically, to the territory within their current boundaries, in Northern Europe.
Maybe the problem is simply that the article lead forgot to mention they are, in fact, countries? :-)
   I made the point of historically within current boundaries because those boundaries are also very close to the boundaries of historical ethnic settlement (as opposed to implying that Poland-Lithuania was a "Baltic state"). —PētersV (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think best way to solve this dispute is to unite Baltic states together. And rename it to United States of Baltics or USB if you wish. That move would possibly benefit baltic states economically, also the new country would be actually VISIBLE on the wikipedia world map thumbnails. And we would gather a lot of fame by being only country in the world named after computer peripheral. Suva Чего? 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Only problem is peripheral before and still peripheral! Remember, "The historical mission of the Baltic provinces is to serve as a battlefield for the problems of the highest politics in Europe." —Russian Governor-General of the Baltic Provinces, Count Shuvalov. For eight hundred years this was true... the Baltics were the slippery slope for Roosevelt and Churchill to condemn all of Eastern Europe to Stalin... Russia remains incalcitrant while the rest of the world has comes to terms with Soviet atrocities... still true... The Baltics are the yardstick by which to measure the true intent and purpose of the "great" powers. PētersV (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, so true. Same with the Benelux states, long caught up in past power struggles between France, Spain and Austria, and twice key invasion route and occupied by Germany in two world wars, it's all a distant memory now. Hopefully for the Baltics too. Martintg (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for something regarding reactions to the 2006 NATO summit and came across this, regarding the "mission":
Latvia - Neatkariga rita avize | 11/05/2006
Eastern Europe against Russia?
Representatives of the states bordering on the Baltic and the Black Sea as well as US representatives met in early May in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius and agreed to establish a "democratic belt" in Eastern Europe. Among other states, the new EU members and Ukraine and Georgia are to form part of that belt. Viktors Avontins comments: "Why is it that the countries of this region are always reduced to figures on a chessboard, exposed to the whims of Washington and Brussels when they're busy dividing up the world into spheres of influence?... Why should the countries of the former Eastern Bloc do all the dirty work of promoting Washington's and Brussels' interests in Russia, instead of Europe as a whole?... This division of labour, which entails Eastern Europe baring its teeth to Russia while Washington and Brussels are all smiles, is simply not fair."
And they are still at it. —PētersV (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Kind of an odd quote: "do all the dirty work of promoting ... Brussels' interests in Russia, instead of Europe as a whole". Umm, I thought Brussels was Europe, or at least the EU. Which entity is he referring to when he speaks of "Europe as a whole"? Washington's dirty work? These countries can make sovereign choices now, right? Martintg (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
We have, for example, elements of EU leadership endorsing Russia's denouncing Estonia as fascists, elements wanting to treat Russia with kid gloves because the EU is increasingly dependent on Russian oil and gas, etc. (Just look who is employing the former German chancellor.) And once again, the countries adjoining Russia are to be the "bulwark" as the U.S. and EU fret over Russia increasingly flexing its muscle even while it embraces authoritarianism.
This is history repeating itself, as when the "great powers" looked to the Baltics to be a bulwark/zone against Sovietism between the wars, but then offered them little to no support (although Britain was quite content to virulently denounce Latvia as "Communist" for cutting a trade deal with the Soviet Union when Britain insured Latvia got zero international aid after WWI after it refused to buy broken-down British planes for its air force), and then hung them out to dry along with all of Eastern Europe. Oops, might I be exposing a "POV" here? :-) Still waiting to here from historian Edgars Anderson's wife regarding republishing his analysis of the Latvian-Soviet commerce treaty of 1927 on our web site. Truly fascinating reading. -PētersV (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I did realize that one renaming we might consider is Baltic "S"tates so that it means sovereign entities, not members of some federation of (small-s) states. I realize there's the whole not capitalizing in Wiki titles thing, but this might help alleviate some of the perceived current problem. (And have we gone over this before?) —PētersV (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, when the article was moved here from Baltic countries it happaned to land on s. Given that this article has been moved/merged back and forth form states (more popular) to countries (sovereignty stressed, may refer to all countries around Baltic Sea, some may think that it is kind of neologism) and vice versa, maybe it would be best to move it to Baltics (exists as redirect, hasn't been tried out yet, consists from the part of the name that everyone seem to agree with) ? ~~Xil...sist! 10:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
"Baltics" works for me. I think I noted that the somewhat equivalent "Balkans" is named similarly, with states and countries redirecting there. I don't hold it out as a Wiki-standard, only that I think it's the simplest solution. To Termer's concerns about people thinking the Baltics are still part of Russia (section following), even here there are editors who have enjoyed a "good laugh" (in deriding the "insignificance" of the Baltics) over ignorant people who ask "wasn't Latvia one of those '-stan' places that [implied, first] became independent after the USSR fell apart?".
   Ignorance is a choice, not a state. (NO pun intended!) Anyone reading here that is interested in lifting their ignorance will have no problems setting their misconceptions straight regardless of what we name the article. Anyone not interested isn't going to be reading in the first place, and if they're here accidentally, we mention "countries" in the opening.
   The title should reflect the most common/simplest nomenclature. If we're concerned over the word "states" then we can simply drop it and take care of any doubts in the first sentence as I suggested. We need to get back to making the article into something we can all be proud of as editors. P.S. I did find my book on Baltic literature and look forward to doing some work on that after the new year. —PētersV (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous use of "Baltic states"

  • Here is an example of the use of THE BALTIC STATES AS UNION REPUBLICS OF THE USSR in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica - Page 676 [9] please scroll down to the last entry.--Termer (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not ambiguous, it simply deals with the fact that the Baltic states were occupied by the USSR. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Here again, the question concerns the occupied Baltic states, which most of us agree continued to exist as legal entities, despite the creation of Soviet SSRs on their territories. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again, this is a obviously shorthand for 'Soviet-occupied Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania'. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Instead of equating "Baltic states" with "Baltic provinces", I read this as a backwards projection of a later entity (interwar independent states) on the equivalent territory of the former Empire. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, we have the statement that new states were formed from the breakup of the old Empire. An independent Finnish state did not exist before the breakup of the Russian Empire. Finland gained independence and became a state. Compare the parallels with the !3 Colonies that gained independence to become the USA. The USA did not pre-exist as an entity before the Declaration of Independence. The same can be said of the Baltic states. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It is common practice to say, for example, that Pakistan was once part of the British Empire, even though the state of Pakistan did not exist in imperial times. What is meant is that the territory of present-day Pakistan was part of the British Empire. Hence, as in the quote, the Russian Empire included the territory of the present-day Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine, even though concepts like "Ukraine" and "Belarus" had no administrative meaning during the Tsarist period. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is a sloppy backwards projection based on the situation today. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That should do it for now, also answer Zalktis how Baltic states get confused with the Baltic provinces of the Russian Empire etc.--Termer (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have shown rather convincingly that "Baltic states" is a commonly accepted term for Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania. :-) Still thinking. —PētersV (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

sure, like shown the best part of this is that the "Baltic States" has been a commonly accepted term for the past 500 years :-D. The only thing is that the Baltic countries have been around since 1920-1940 and 1991...And perhaps the Baltic states thing has something to do with it as well that even some travel agencies nowadays seem to think that Riga in Latvia must be a town in some Russian state/province. Check it out. [10] --Termer (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
PS. Just to make you feel better, the same was it with Tallinn , a town in Russia [11]. Only after someone called the agency and told them that the state is actually a country, they changed the booking form [12]. Riga still remains to be a town in a Russian state though. Perhaps if WP was saying that Baltic states are actually Baltic countries, the travel agency guys could get it right next time on their own.--Termer (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the uncouth liberty of answering your points individually above. Please excuse this disruption of the dialogue flow, but I felt that answering some other way would be even more unwieldy. — Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There was really no need to comment those entries Zalktis, those speak fine for themselves how sloppily the term is used. And no comment to the term "Baltic states" changes the fact that the states are commonly thought to be either one country somewhere or just states of Russia.--Termer (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dr. Dan (Cutting the Gordian knot?) Baltic States....is a common designation for three sovereign nations... Sovereign nations in the US most often are referred to while speaking of American Indian Tribes. So this adds to the picture that Baltic states is a some sort of Russian state with sovereign nations Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania like Indian Tribes in the US. Check out the American Indian Sovereign Navajo Nation in the states of Utah etc. Here is the Constitution of the Sovereign Cherokee Nation etc. There are states, there are sovereign nations and then there are countries in the world--Termer (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously trying to cut the Gordian knot here has become harder than pulling hen's teeth (at least on these talk pages), because Sovereign nation in the English language has a broader meaning than referring to just the Navajos, or the Cherokees, or any other Native American tribe. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness, citing Wikipedia is self-referential. "State" capital "S" is sovereign country ("nation" can also refer to a people as in your example, so there one needs to distinguish (people) nation from nation-state). "State" small is is member of federation/association (per Wiki definition, OK, I ignored my own admonition about being self referential). :-) PētersV (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding formulation

Current suggestion The Baltic states first became independent in the aftermath of the First World War in 1918. is a bit wrong. Lithuania was independent until 1795. And Lithuanians only reestablished independence in 1918. M.K. (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be quite a stretch to call Lithuania independent until 1795. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where in 1696 Polish became the official state language, calling it independent Lithuania, the country where upper classes became Polonized, is not that different what happened in Estonia-Livonia with the native upper classes that were Germanized in the Livonian confederation.etc. However, more accurate than current statement The Baltic states became independent would be to point out that Lithuania or Lithuanians and Estonians , Latvians regained their sovereignties after centuries of foreign domination by establishing independent states...in Lithuanias case it would be reestablishing an independent state etc. For Estonians and Latvians the foreign dominations lasted about 700 years. I guess it would be up to Lithuanians to decide when exactly did they loose their independence in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the 1791 Polish constitution it was spelled out but the process started long time before that date--Termer (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see M.K.'s statement "as quite a stretch". Certainly Polish becoming the official language of the PLC doesn't negate the fact of Lithuania's independent existence any more than whether the upper classes became Polonized. It remained a distinct state, unoccupied and as independent as any other, in the time frame in question, prior to the partitions of the PLC. Dr. Dan (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure Dr. Dan, please refer to any published books that say Lithuania was an independent country until 1795 and I'm with you. So far also WP speaks of the Lithuanian authonomy within Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth -Rzeczpospolita.--Termer (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The USSR-German Aggression Against Lithuania p. 378 Lithuanian nation lost its independence for the first time in 1795 when the Lithuanian State was incorporated in the Russian Empire. Case close. And now it is OT. M.K. (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant to say autonomy. Right? Dr. Dan (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching it but no, I meant to say "authonomy", exactly what it said on WP. thought it was a dialect or something and just copypasted it over. This "Lithuanian authonomy" has actually spread further than WP. Check it out: [13]; [14]--Termer (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
At least we can get it right on WP. God forbid that authonomy should get more "google hits" than autonomy, and therefore we get arguments claiming that it's the preferred and correct version to use. Btw, may I inquire as to what your native language is? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)